Chen Qin v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 40

Chen Qin, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without admission in Oct. 2011 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
She testified she was a baptized Protestant (2005), attended an underground house church, and fled after police allegedly sought her in Sept. 2011; she was smuggled out and apprehended in Texas.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Chen not credible, concluded she suffered no past persecution, and denied asylum because she failed to show an objectively well‑founded fear of future persecution or inability to relocate within China.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on the ground that, even assuming credibility, Chen did not establish an objective fear of persecution; it relied in part on State Department reports showing religious restrictions in China vary by location and that some house churches operate openly.
The First Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and limited the dispute to whether the record compels a finding of an objectively reasonable fear of persecution; it denied Chen’s petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ/BIA clearly erred in credibility finding	Chen: IJ wrongly discredited her testimony	Gov: IJ credibility finding supported by record	Not addressed by BIA; Chen did not prevail because BIA resolved appeal on alternative ground (fear)
Whether Chen demonstrated objectively well‑founded fear of future persecution as a Christian	Chen: State Dept. report and family letters show pattern or practice and risk to her specifically	Gov: Evidence shows persecution varies by location; Chen can relocate; family members remain unharmed; alleged arrests are isolated or harassment	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA that Chen failed to show objective fear or inability to relocate
Whether State Department reports establish a "pattern or practice" of persecution in China	Chen: Reports and country conditions show systematic repression of unregistered Christians	Gov: Reports show variability by region and that many unregistered churches operate openly; not enough to prove pattern or practice as to Chen	Denied — reports do not compel finding of pattern or practice or tie sufficiently to Chen’s situation
Whether failure on asylum claim defeats withholding of removal claim	Chen: N/A (contends entitlement to protection)	Gov: Withholding has higher burden; if asylum fails, withholding necessarily fails absent additional proof	Held — withholding claim fails because asylum standard unmet; higher withholding standard not satisfied

Peña–Beltre v. Holder, 622 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (standard of review for BIA factual findings)
Topalli v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 128 (1st Cir.) (substantial evidence review and asylum burden)
Xian Tong Dong v. Holder, 696 F.3d 121 (1st Cir.) (requirement for evidence specific to petitioner; use of State Dept. reports)
Sunarto Ang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 6 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing persecution from harassment)
Thapaliya v. Holder, 750 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (isolated incidents may not amount to persecution)
Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (withholding of removal standard higher than asylum)
Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374 (7th Cir.) (description of persecution scope)